Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Thomas Massie, Ron Wyden Join Forces To Unplug the President's 'Internet Kill Switch'

Civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress have joined forces to call for canceling a little-known executive power.

Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Ron Wyden (D–Ore), and Gary Peters (D–Mich.), along with Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) and Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), introduced bills this week to abolish the so-called "internet kill switch"—a sweeping emergency executive authority over communications technology that predates World War II.

"No president from either party should have the sole power to shut down or take control of the internet or any other of our communication channels during an emergency," Paul argued in a statement announcing the Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act.

The bill aims to revoke Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934. When that law was passed, there was no internet. But the broad language included in Section 706 means that it could be invoked today to give a president "nearly unchallenged authority to restrict access to the internet, conduct email surveillance, control computer systems, and cell phones," Gabbard explained in her statement on the bill.

It's even worse than that. As Michael Socolow wrote in Reason last year, the law is so broad that it effectively gives the president the ability to commandeer any electronic device that emits radiofrequency transmissions. These days, Socolow noted, that includes "everything from your implanted heart device to the blow dryer for your hair. It includes your electric exercise equipment, any smart device (such as a digital washing machine), and your laptop—basically everything in your house that has electricity running through it."

Since the United States is technically engaged in 35 ongoing "national emergencies"—thanks in large part to an executive branch that has stripped those words of their meaning—we should probably be grateful that President Donald Trump hasn't yet reached for this power. He's already invoked Cold War–era laws to impose greater executive control over global commerce in the name of "national security" and has declared illegal immigration to be a national emergency as a political maneuver to redirect funding for a border wall.

Like many presidents before him, Trump seems willing to use whatever powers Congress has foolishly granted to the executive branch to the fullest extent. Congress should claw back what it can.

"With so many Americans relying on the internet to do everything from online banking to telehealth to education, it's essential that federal law reflect today's digital world, not the analog world of World War II," Carl Szabo, general counsel for NetChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for a free and open internet, tells Reason.

How much the federal government could actually do to shut down the internet remains a subject of debate. The very nature of the net—a diffuse network of interconnected computers and servers—makes it virtually impossible for the government to flip a literal on/off switch or push a stereotypical big red button to cut off all Americans.

But the Department of Homeland Security does have protocols for shutting down wireless networks during an emergency, which the agency argues could be used to stop a terrorist from detonating a remote bomb. Given that authoritarian leaders in other countries have shut down wide swaths of internet access during periods of unrest, it's not unfathomable that something similar could happen here.

"When governments around the world turn off internet access, they do significant harm to their national economies and their citizens' civil rights," Massie noted in a statement.

In the midst of an election season in which partisan lines have grown more rigid than ever and when neither major political party seems all that interested in pro-freedom policies, this team-up of libertarian-friendly lawmakers is a little heartwarming. Gabbard, Massie, Paul, and Wyden may not find many allies in Congress on this issue—and, indeed, they don't always agree with one another—but this is one of those issues that might not seem to matter much until suddenly it really does. It's better not to wait for that moment.

"The internet," Wyden declared in a statement, "is far too essential to nearly every part of our democratic system—everything from work, to school and free speech—for any president to have unilateral power to turn it off."

https://reason.com/2020/09/25/rand-paul-tulsi-gabbard-thomas-massie-ron-wyden-join-forces-to-unplug-the-presidents-internet-kill-switch/

Parents sue LAUSD, blasting its online learning as an ‘educational crisis’

The Los Angeles Unified School District’s distance learning plan has caused “enormous learning losses” and left tens of thousands of Black and Latino students without a basic education, according to allegations in a class action lawsuit filed against the district Thursday.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Los Angles public school parents, alleges that the district is failing students by offering less instructional time to students compared with other large districts in California and cutting the hours that teachers are required to work

“My daughter and the children of my community…they’ve been failed by the district,” said Judith Larson, a plaintiff in the suit whose daughter is in seventh grade at South Gate Middle School. “The poor education our students receive this year is going to have an impact for years to come.”

Some of the nine parents who filed the suit said teachers frequently dismiss class early, sometimes soon after taking attendance. Others said they received nonfunctioning computers from the district, including ones that crashed every time they tried to access online meetings. And others said their children are not learning anything new and are only reviewing old material.

The plaintiffs were organized by two advocacy groups, Innovate Public Schools and Parent Revolution, which have been critical of the district’s approach to distance learning. The suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, asks for an injunction to stop the district from “further depriving plaintiffs of their constitutional rights,” as well as a declaration that the district is violating students’ rights.

In a statement, L.A. Unified spokeswoman Shannon Haber said that the district had not yet been served with the lawsuit but that districts like Los Angeles “have to balance the sometimes conflicting priorities of the learning needs of students and the health and safety of all in the school community.”

“Since school closed in March, L.A. Unified has been working to bridge the digital divide ensuring all students have devices and access to the internet. It has also sought innovative ways to engage students online,” Haber said. “Los Angeles Unified will continue to provide the best possible education to all students.”

In a statement, Sierra Elizabeth, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said “LAUSD’s distance learning plan is woefully inadequate.”

“Not only does the plan deny all public school children in our city the basic rights guaranteed to them by the California Constitution, it disproportionately harms the poorest and most vulnerable children in this school district and that is unacceptable,” she said.

Larson, 52, said her daughter, an honor roll student, only received about two or three hours of instruction per week in the spring. Things improved slightly in the fall, but nowhere near enough for her daughter to catch up, she said.

Her 12-year-old’s schedule shows she is supposed to be in class from 9 a.m. until 2:15 p.m. with a 30-minute lunch break. Instead, she has a 90-minute lunch break and teachers often dismiss class early, sometimes soon after taking attendance and asking whether students have completed their homework. She was given five textbooks, but has yet to open them “because there’s no need,” Larson said.

“My biggest worry is that she’s not going to be ready for eighth grade and this is like a domino effect because my dream is that she can get to college,” Larson said. “And I don’t see that that’s going to happen that easily… She’s being left behind.”

The suit puts much of the blame for the failures it alleges on two agreements between the district and the teachers union — one that was signed in April and another in August. Under the August agreement, teachers are expected to work six hours a day.

Several plaintiffs also described their lack of adequate technology to access education. District officials have said that they have all the technology that students need.

Some plaintiffs, however, said they have requested wireless hot spots but have not received them. And one parent said his 16-year-old son attends his online classes by cellphone because he has not received a computer from the district.

Akela Wroten, Jr. has three children in LAUSD schools, ages 4, 6 and 8. He has internet access at home but the bandwidth is not adequate. He said he was put on a waiting list for a hot spot but has not received one.

He joined the suit because he sees how his children are struggling, he said.

“This experience is pretty much chaos,” Wroten said. “If Wi-Fi is not working, Zoom isn’t working or the apps that they have aren’t working…we were not prepared at all and our babies are suffering from it.”

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-24/parents-sue-lausd-blasting-its-online-learning-for-creating-an-educational-crisis

Portland: Multnomah Co Sheriff – @MultCoSO

Officers have made more than a dozen arrests. To those demonstrating downtown, the streets are open to vehicular traffic. Stay in the park and on the sidewalks.

Update from the Unified Command: A mass gathering on SW 3rd Ave. & SW Main St. has been hostile to officers trying to clear the street, which is open to traffic. During multiple attempts to disengage, full cans, rocks and other objects were thrown at officers.

Officers have observed people setting fires. Anyone who is involved in criminal behavior, including reckless burning is subject to arrest or citation.

MCSO Rapid Response Teams were deputized as Federal Marshals this afternoon. This will allow federal prosecutors to charge allegations of assault on a federal officer to anyone who attacks county deputies.

https://twitter.com/MultCoSO/status/1310087294917828608

Gov. Newsom signs bill allowing male inmates who identify as 'women' to be housed in women's prisons in California

California's Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill Saturday to end sex-segregated prisons in that state, to allow inmates to be housed based on the gender with which they identify as opposed to dividing them by sex.

The caveat of the bill is that this privilege is only for those inmates with which the penal system does not have "management or security concerns."

This collection of bills, designed with the aim of "strengthening protections for LGBTQ+ Californians," does little for women or children, as it opens female prisons to male-bodied persons, and enables tax payer funds to go toward the medical transitioning of minors. There is also funding to find the impact of COVID-19, which is an illness that primarily affects the elderly and those with existing health complications, on the LGBT+ community.

Newsom said that "with the bills signed today, our march toward equality takes an additional step forward. These new laws will help us better understand the impacts of COVID-19 on the LGBTQ+ community, establish a new fund to support our transgender sisters and brothers and advance inclusive and culturally competent efforts that uphold the dignity of all Californians, regardless of who you are or who you love."

SB 932, sponsored Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), gives public health officials a view of communicable diseases through the lens of gender identity and sexual orientation. Health data will collected on a persons gender identity and sexual orientation in addition to their additional health concerns. According to legislators, this "is essential to addressing health inequities and designing public health interventions that help California's diverse communities."

SB 132, sponsored again by San Francisco's own Senator Wiener, will allow inmates to self-select whether they wish to be housed in a men's or women's prison, based on self-ID alone. It will give people the option to house "people according to their own sense of where they will be safest." Moreover, it will make sure that inmates are addressed according to their preferred pronouns throughout their stay in California's prison system.

Weiner's primary concern in bringing the legislation was for male-bodied trans persons who would prefer to be housed in women's facilities, with women. Weiner thanked Newson, saying that SB 132 will protect "particularly trans women who are subject to high levels of assault and harassment in men’s facilities."

The Transgender Wellness and Equity Fund, AB 2218, was sponsored by Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles), and is what will give health authorities the requirement to track gender identity and sexual orientation so as to facilitate non-discriminatory practices in healthcare and housing. Stating that "COVID-19 has exacerbated these existing health care disparities," Santiago said that "this bill will help create programs where TGI-identified people can receive safe, competent, and inclusive health care and other social services."

AB 2218 provides "critical medical and direct supportive services for transgender, gender non-conforming and/or intersex people, otherwise know as TGI," and will open the door for state-funded medical transitions for minors. The bill is aimed at TGI persons, and there is no age limit on care.

This legislation builds on recently passed law, also sponsored by Weiner, intended to "end discrimination against LGBTQ young people" by making "exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register."

Basically, if an adult engages in sex with a minor who is not more than ten years his junior, and hasn't committed any other infractions for which they have been required to register, they will not be made to register as a sex offender. However, seeing as they would not be made to register if there was only this one offense, and no previous offenses of this nature would be recorded, a repeat offender would not be noticed by law enforcement, as the offenses would not be recorded.

California now allows for men to "opt-in" to women's prisons, removed protections protecting minors from sexual predators, and has opened the door to funding medical transition for minors.

https://thepostmillennial.com/gov-newsom-signs-bill-allow-male-inmates-womens-prisons-california